Cutting CO2 too difficult? Try these 4 simple tricks instead

Global warming is not only something in ONE lifetime...

Global warming is a long term thing. It doesn't mean that the next TWENTY years will be perceptibly hotter. It means that the coming centuries will be hotter. New England had a massive, late winter this year. That doesn't change the overall perception that there is global warming.

I am not buying in to AGW as being a primary (or even major) cause, though. I think that sustainability argues for controlling carbon-loading, I just don't buy into AGW causing global warming, yet!

Cost...

Yes, there are some things that can be done for "low cost". The problem is that Governments WANT high cost items to justify their existence (laws, regulations, etc.). Government rarely does anything "on the cheap". It needs a big bureaucracy to feed off of and further its existence to get votes.

If things were good ideas and cheap on their own, people would already do them. They would make economic sense to do them. We would have switched LONG ago to nice compact fluorescent lights if they made sense, but they really don't so why bother. No, a big government needs to enact laws because it "knows better" to demand their use. Now we have all sorts of disposal problems with the mercury they contain, and government will need to emit dictates for them as well, continuing the cycle.

Some of this falls into the category: "be careful for what you ask for, you may just get it!".

It's not exactly "news", the effect of other factors has been known for a long time. But the broohaha over CO2 has swamped everything else, particularly the effect that carbon particulates have.

But if a relatively easy "fix" is available, then the panic is over and no more millions would be available for dubious research into anthropomorphic global warming and they'd have to find something else to cause a panic over. So don't expect this to make big headlines anytime soon.

Are we Super Humans?

Do you seriously think you can control the seas rising or falling? Ice ages or no Ice ages? Google may control many/most humans, but controlling the planet is a completely different thing. A true honest discussion should be made using Millenia as numbers not decades or years. One Millenia before we had a Mini-Ice age which kicked off the Dark ages, cold climate, crop failures, kicked off disease, plague, cholera, de-populating Europe by 60% over 300 years. Thankfully it has been warming since then. 7 Millenia ago there was a land bridge from Asia to Alaska. 15 Millenia ago Northern Europe and Northern America were covered in Ice. The Sahara used to be a grassland. 80% of Earth's history, we had no Ice. Redwood forests were plentiful in Alaska. So now we are so smart that we can control the weather??? If we could control it, Is colder really better, than warmer?? The tropics (between 23 degrees and equator) are the most life abundant areas on the planet, and the coldest areas have the least life. Or do we say that now is perfect, and all change would be bad. Unenlightened thought to the maximum. Foolish human clinging to control.

Store the water in the desert

OK, so climate change is more than just sea level rising but if those of us living in rich lowland cities like London and New York were to pay for the diversion of part of the River Congo's northern tributaries into the Chad basin it would kill two birds with one stone; a huge lake storing water that would otherwise be adding to sea level and a more fertile Sahel.

Addressing the problem

The more effective way to deal with climate change is to have policy makers in Washington DC that are willing to enact laws and regulations to reduce emissions. Currently we have too many obstructionists (mainly industry backed Republicans) in the Senate and House. Confront your policy maker and insist they take meaningful action. If they don't work to have them removed. Our future generations are at risk. Apathy, denial, and/or ignorance are poor excuses for inaction.

fat people cant swim well, there would be less of them sitting around al day farting nonstop

How about just adopting LENR?

"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).

This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/

How is this newsworthy?

Lewis, this is not new information. The impact of GWGs are routinely published in units of CO2e, that's CO2 equivalent. This is a metric which takes account of the fact that there are other gasses (such as methane) that have a greater effect per unit. A lot of the time when you see figures published in terms of CO2 they're actually CO2e, the distinction isn't always made explicitly, even though it should be.

A sensible climate change strategy targets all emissions with high GWP, not just CO2. That's why we've taken action on refrigerants, for example, and as you rightly point out doing so is very cost effective. It sounds like you're trying to suggest that climate change mitigation currently focuses solely on CO2, which is not the case. This paper merely reinforces a widely known fact.

Climate changes, but

I lack the true believer's assurance that opinions and consensus make for good science. I am not a "Carbonite" desperately counting carbon in the hopes of stemming catastrophe. And since the #1 greenhouse gas is (shudder) water vapor, it seems to be futile to be wrapped up in constraining a trace gas like CO2. Especially since the human contribution of CO2 is swamped by the outgassing of the planet's oceans.

I believe the culprit for climate change is that nearby variable star we rely upon, and our interactions with said fusion reactor. But what do I know? I am not funded by governments who would enjoy the power and revenue from meddling about, selling and buying credits.

Please eliminate ALL C)2

and kill every green thing on the planet ... then ... maybe ... people will quit listening to AL GORE and his posse about this STINKING BAD SCIENCE.

Please eliminate ALL CO2

and kill every green thing on the planet ... then ... maybe ... people will quit listening to AL GORE and his posse about this STINKING BAD SCIENCE.